No, that's not what was being said. The options on the table are: 1. Pay the licencing fees for proprietary software that already does what you want it to do.

No, that's not what was being said. The options on the table are: 1. Pay the licencing fees for proprietary software that already does what you want it to do. 2. Sponsor development of an open-source project so that it will eventually do what you want it to do. The argument being made is that, in the case of KiCad and this particular institution, option 1 was seen to be cheaper than option 2. In other words, it was deemed to be cheaper to pay the licence costs for the proprietary solution than it would be to pay a developer to make KiCad fit in with what they wanted.